Talk:Fort Liberty

Change article name?

Since Fort Bragg is getting a name change, shouldn't the Wikipedia article name be changed (although I'm sure that it's not until September that the base name change goes info effect). Qutlooker (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The post exchanges knew the dates for all 9 posts already. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Closing some hours early under WP:SNOW; the name has not changed yet, so a WP:NAMECHANGES move cannot be enacted. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Fort Bragg → Fort Liberty – The Naming Commission has decided to change the name to Fort Liberty from it’s old name of Fort Bragg, this should mean the Article name be moved to fit the new name. Qutlooker (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, not yet (will support when name changes). Per the name hasn't changed yet and major sources still refer to it as Fort Bragg since it hasn't changed its name. At least wait until Congress actually approves the name changes--it might not even happen. From The Naming Commission FAQs: the Secretary of Defense is expected to “implement a plan submitted by the commission” no later than Jan. 1, 2024 .... we anticipate that renaming activities would take place around that time-frame and from its homepage: These renaming recommendations for Army installations named in commemoration of the Confederacy will be in our final report to Congress, due by October 1, 2022.. A redirect from the future name to this page could be made assuming this is closed as not moved for now. retroactively signing Skynxnex (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2022‎ (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's follow general practice, not lead the way. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - commonname applies as it is still widely known as Bragg. - wolf 06:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature at this point. PrisonerB (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bravo Hpcon; This is Anthony Aviles requesting mission return information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.183.57 (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Hpcon;information received.Requesting uniform package and video information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.183.57 (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Mention arrest and drug investigation ?

https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/fear-grips-special-ops-amidst-human-trafficking-drug-arrests

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3927016&page=1

https://eu.fayobserver.com/story/news/2022/12/06/fort-bragg-soldier-christopher-scott-looney-jailed-child-sex-crime-charges-in-cumberland-county/69705114007/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fifteen-soldiers-questioned-drug-investigation-fort-bragg-reports

The 2002 and 2021 events are mentioned, these probably should be mentioned too. 2A01:E34:EC1F:9440:EC11:F0CE:C972:ED46 (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Bragg was disgraced?

Thought this was based on facts, but evidently Wikipedia has many opnions under the guise of facts. 75.137.106.45 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

A Confederate general being disgraced is common sense... but if you want sources, there are tons of them on Braxton Bragg. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

And none given. Typical. 216.71.37.48 (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"Bragg was disgraced" isn't found anywhere in the article. Now, it was there for an entire day when the IP got all dramatic, but it was reverted--so, pray tell, what exactly is your complaint? Is it based on a reading of the (current) article? Drmies (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that it's unlikely Bragg will continue to be the common name. (non-admin closure) SnowFire (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Fort Liberty → Fort Bragg – Procedural request (see also last RM discussion). The page has been moved without discussion, we cannot immediately assess whether the [just effected] new official name is in common usage, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES the title should stick to the old name till the new name is broadly taken up by sources. Gotitbro (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, its still going to be referred to as Fort Bragg currently in parlance so should be kept at that name until it is proved otherwise the new name has been taken up by the media and public. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The train has already left the station; the money has been spent to change the signs. The renaming is official. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

References

• Oppose. Older references about events need to reflect Bragg while events going forward need to reflect Liberty. 2600:1004:B04C:6C0E:449C:14DF:C725:2DFD (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
  • "Official acts" have nothing to do with article titles, see WP:COMMONNAME.XavierGreen (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is the current official name of a city, as well as a military base. If it is not in common use sooner or later it will be. Moving the article to the old name would only create confusion. --Yeagvr (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Official names do not decide article titles; WP:COMMONNAMEs do. And "if it is not in common use, sooner or later it will be" is inappropriate per WP:CRYSTALBALL – it can always be moved when that day comes. DecafPotato (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The name of the installation has been changed. The case is closed. I don't think "Liberty" was the best of the new names by a long shot, but we don't have to agree with everything.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 12:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. How is there not a link to disambiguation? People are going to go here as long as they remember the old name. And there might be some not going here for that reason at all. So I fixed it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support WP:COMMONNAME.XavierGreen (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. See Yeagvr's rationale. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Keep new legal name.Naraht (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Per the RM cited by nom (closed as not moved).estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per my oppose rationale in the previous (reverse) RM: keep at Fort Liberty. News media clearly is just going to use the new name (Joe and Jill Biden will make two stops in North Carolina this week. Here's what we know., FORT LIBERTY — The Marines will be back in town for their semi-annual field artillery exercise at the newly redesignated Fort Liberty, officials said in a news release Friday., Questions raised about changing street names off the Fort Liberty post). I can't find any sources published since the rename that have Fort Bragg as the primary name and even the ones in the previous months make it clear they're just waiting for the name change to begin using Liberty. Some casual usage will remain using Fort Bragg but not enough to justify going against reliable sources plus official name means keep at new name. And as WP:COMMONNAME name says When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. Even if we think there isn't a single, obvious name I think Fort Liberty is the best title at this point in time. If we look at WP:OFFICIALNAMES#Practicality, I don't think any of the concerns listed there applies: Obscurity it's not/will be not an obscure name; Competing authorities there is a single official name; Changes to names the US military is not quick to change names so there's likely decades (or longer) until it gets renamed again (if ever); and Propaganda this is the closest one but renaming to remove a Confederate general's name isn't really propaganda. The hat note about the redirect plus the mention in the lead eliminates any confusion. Skynxnex (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Supoort sorry, but who gives a sh¡t if "money has been spent on signs", which has absolutely nothing to do with WP naming rules, or if the new name if now "legal"... so what? Is the new, legal, expensive name the name which is most commonly used in sources to refer to the article subject? That is something in the WP naming rules that we would use to determine an article name. Furthermore, this was a bold move that is now contested, the page should be moved back until a proper RM is carried out. (imo) - wolf 03:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support WE should wait at least until WP:COMMONNAME is established, sorry, but who gives a sh¡t if "money has been spent on signs", … … or if the new name if now "legal"... so what? The legal status, money spent, official dictates have nothing to do with WP naming policies. Pincrete (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. As with Willis Tower or Kolkata, the fact that some might stubbornly continue to use the old name (whether for nostalgia or political reasons) is irrelevant. An encyclopedia should use the name that will be in actual, common usage on signage, maps, etc. Wikipedia isn't useful to our readers if we use a title that is objectively incorrect because some people use the old name. agtx 12:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• As you're "opposing per wp:commonname", can you quote a section of that policy that supports your !vote? As you may have noticed, people have been citing commonname to support this request, so it's not clear how it supports your opposition to it. Otherwise, you should perhaps cite another policy or guideline that actually supports your entry here, or else it will have little weight as far a consensus is concerned. If you are opposed to commonname itself, then I suggest you take that up on the talk page of that policy, or an appropriate project page. - wolf 13:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  I am not who you are replying to but I partly used WP:COMMONNAME in my oppose of a change away from Fort Liberty; I didn't cite it above but the WP:NAMECHANGES section of common name says we give far more weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. In my searches on Google News, for example, nearly all sources use Fort Liberty as the primary name since the rename, ignoring the links I shared above and that are only about the base rename, here's a sampling: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (and not a RS but an independent press release [6]; an article about students trying to change the name of the HS to match [7]); the only article I can find that uses Bragg as the primary name in what may be a reliable source (but it's not a traditional news outlet): [8]. Skynxnex (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

But all your sources are news clips about the name change (eg: the first three are about the first baby born there... since the name change). Of course your going to find news articles reporting on the name change... it was news. But for other sources; eg: non-news articles, books, gov't reports, etc., it will take time for the new name to catch up and establish itself (esp. without a "formerly known as..." tag attached). It will happen, people just need to be patient. As for "...the only article I can find that uses Bragg...", how hard did you look? A quick Google search for "fort liberty" comes back with 539k hits, while "fort bragg" comes back with 11.8 million. Right now, Bragg is a little more "common" than Liberty (by about 2200%). - wolf 15:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I had meant to bind since the rename to the only article I can find that uses Bragg as the primary name as well when trying to apply WP:NAMECHANGES (of course I knew there is more a single article ever published with Bragg as the primary name). I was looking at things published approximately in the past week we give more weight to what sources are using after renames. Have you found any other reliable sources published since the change that has Fort Bragg as the primary name? The links above are not solely "announcing" the official name change, even if some are notable now due to the change. (Re: the baby; it's the same event but three distinct news sources using Liberty as the primary name.) In my memory of past renames, articles using "Y, formerly named X," generally count toward changing (here's some more [9], [10]).

I was curious if other things are following it and it appears that institutions of higher education that have branches connected to Fort Liberty have begun changing their names: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]; incomplete change [20] (job title changed but not other parts). (As you point out, there hasn't been time for scholarly publications or books to actually have published under the new name, but I did find one 2023 master's thesis which used Fort Liberty [21].)

There's WP:NODEADLINE but I do not see how changing the article title back improves the encyclopedia for our readers.

In doing more research, there was a recent MR started on May 14 to move Fort Cavazos back to Fort Hood; it was closed as not moved and was started "just" four few days later than this one, in terms of when the name changed happened: Talk:Fort Cavazos#Requested move 14 May 2023. Skynxnex (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The page shouldn't have been arbitrarily moved, without discussion, in the first place. There was a previous RM that failed, that is still on this talk page, and therefore another RM should've been posted instead. Even now, the page should be moved back as a challenged/controversial move and this RM should actually be to determine if the page is to be moved from the original name to the new name, not the other way around. This is all backwards. I know Liberty is the new, official name, and the page will be moved to it eventually, but we should be following established practices to do so. (imo) - wolf 18:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Well... my understanding is that undiscussed moves that someone wants to undo should either be just moved back or, if technically unable to do so, make a technical move request per WP:RMUM. I read this MR as someone being unsure if the move should be reverted and decided to start a discussion about if the page should moved back or not instead, which would supersede any technical request or other undiscussed move. Skynxnex (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

A) So we agree. B) The OP seems pretty certain to me, but I wouldn't presume to speak for them.

That said, doing all this backwards doesn't address the problem that a 'no-consensus' result creates. - wolf 19:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I found a citation for the remaining redesignation days; the post exchanges knew the dates. It should be possible to rationalize the wp:rm process for fort Polk (13 June 2023), fort A.P. Hill (25 August 2023), and fort Gordon (27 October 2023). I initiated the wp:rm for Fort Polk, and moved the 19th Century Fort Johnson. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

So it appears that if the wp:rm moves are discussed in the seven day period before the redesignation dates, (for example if a move request for Fort AP Hill to Fort Walker were to be initiated on 18 August 2023, or if a move request for Fort Gordon to Fort Eisenhower were to be initiated on 20 October 2023) then in the absence of controversy, the moves could then occur on the redesignation dates. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The 8th and 9th Army post redesignation dates are 25 August and 27 October 2023. This presents an opportunity for the Wikipedia:Closing discussions procedure (as well as the WP:RMCI) to be debugged beginning 13 June 2023. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of "trust the page move process" there appears to be the possibility that after 11 June 2023, an appropriate editor will be able to validly close this move request with 1) not moved, 2) moved, or 3) neither (meaning the current page name stands). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion but briefly: A) we don't quite agree; I think undiscussed moves can be fine; B) if they just wanted to revert an undiscussed moved, it they could have moved it back or requested a technical move. So, per WP:NOTBURO I'm not sure what the point is of using editors' time for two full move requests when, as you say, the page will be moved to it eventually. Skynxnex (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Oy... And yet you bludgeon away anyway.

"'A) we don't quite agree..." - And I am truly shocked at that. Anyway, as I already said; heaven forbid something is done the correct way, but it seems political correctness trumps rules amd established practice - again. (and with that, I think we're done here, unless you have some must-have-last-word kinda thing) Have a nice day - wolf 05:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see the Fort Polk move request. This is an opportunity to debug the WP:RMCI (I just found the Wikipedia:Simple RM closing instructions). The dates for vanilla moves would be 13 June 2023, 25 August 2023, and 27 October 2023. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Evidence would need to be provided that Fort Bragg continues to be the WP:COMMONNAME in news sources, etc, following the recent rennaming. This hasn't been provided, and it doesn't seem at all likely. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support WP:TOOSOON because the GOP promises to rename it to Bragg, if they win the Presidency in 2024.[22] Of course who wins in 2024 is CRYSTAL, however this move will be very difficult to implement technically due to contextual issues, it will be a lot of manual work. It will pay to wait another 18 months or so to make sure we are on solid ground rather than spinning wheels on the whims of near-term politics. If the GOP looses, it's very unlikely they would be able to rename it beyond 2024. -- GreenC 01:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The article's name should reflect the current name of the base with a redirect for the former name. This change was made by the U.S. Army and is not a fly-by-night decision that is going to revert. Rublamb (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Former events

Former events and people involved need to remain attached and recognized at Fort Bragg. Many of the notable events and people have not lived to see Fort Liberty, therefore references to such events occurring at Liberty are actually false references. Example would mirror the concept of ancient locations being referenced for events during their respective times versus the modern locality names (Babylon vs. Iraq) while more modern events utilize the current names. 2600:1004:B04C:6C0E:449C:14DF:C725:2DFD (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

The Fort Liberty Garrison Command Sergeant Major is CSM Gregory Seymour.

https://home.army.mil/liberty/index.php/about/leadership/garrison-csm Jbornedubs (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The Command Sergeant Major of the Garrison should be listed below the current commander of the Garrison. 65.191.85.133 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Change it back?

This is just one example of people trying to change the name back, but it's be unsuccessful, more than likely. I got here too late. I wasn't supporting reversing the move. Just making a point.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't put the ref below here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

All references to Fort Liberty in the Notable Events section need to be either changed back to Fort Bragg or references to the name of the base altogether need to be removed. No historical documents are being altered to reflect the new name on prior historic events, therefore, references made to past events by people that are no longer alive and never on "Fort Liberty", creates a case of a false narrative. For all practical purposes, the only notable event that has occurred at Fort Liberty is the name transition ceremony. If unwilling to change, then please delete the Notable Events section, since the references to Fort Liberty in events attended by Presidents Kennedy and Reagan are factually incorrect. This is not a case of someone not being able to accept the name change... it is simply about the facts being accurately displayed. 2600:1004:B094:C954:159B:FCB1:3A3E:BCC9 (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Also read through #Requested move 3 June 2023. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, we had a similar problem when USS Robert Smalls was renamed. A user changed every instance of the previous name, "Chancellorsville", to the new name, (eg: In May 1992, Robert Smalls engaged in Exercise Random Name.) This was not only factually incorrect, it looked bizarre. After several editors protested, the changes were reverted. The ship is now only referred to by the new name for events that took place after the name change (fyi). As for this article, all the changes, similar to above, appeared to have been made here. They should be undone to factually reflect both the historical record and attached sourcing. (imho) - wolf 07:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There may be too much angst here. When the same issue came up about Fort Benning/Fort Moore, an established editor just reverted the over-enthusiastic changes without, I think, using a bot.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I reset the post name to "Bragg" for pre-change events and references. A second set of eyeballs would help.Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Should references be updated?

For instance, this article makes several references to Fort Bragg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn It was named Fort Bragg while the former general attended, but the article itself may become less useful as a educational resource as time goes on and the reference ages. PseudoNova (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)